1. When Myskina won her 2 Moscow titles they were tier 1, thus the equivalent of a Premier Mandatory now.

Click to expand...

Not correct. Tournaments formerly known as Tier 1 are not the same as currently 'Premier Mandatory'. There were about 14 Tier 1 tournaments (depending on exact year you want to talk about). There are only 4 Premier Mandatory tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Bejing. Indian Wells and Miami are 128 draw, Madrid and Bejing are 64.

Kremlin Cup, when the tour was reorganized, was categorized as a merely Premier tournament, below Premier Mandatory and Premier 5. It was always just 32 draw.

To claim that two Kremlin Cup wins (by Myskina) are somehow comparable to two Premier Mandatory wins (by Wozniacki: Indian Wells and Bejing) is simply not correct.

2. I did not say Myskina and Majoli had a better non slam performance than Wozniacki. I said that in no way, shape, or form is the disparity in non slam performance nearly enough to overcome a slam win, like it is for Nalbandian (who has had a way better career than Woz) vs Gaudio (who has had a way worse career in general than Majoli and Myskina).

3. For what it is worth Moscow in the early 2000s, and Zurich in the 90s were back then bigger tournaments than some of the real jokes they have made into tier 1s (or Premier Mandatories, when I say one it speaks for both as they are the equivalent from one time to the next) today like Tokyo and Beijing, which of course are some of Wozniackis 5 tier 1 level titles.

Since you started asking the questions, I have one for you. Do you really believe anyone except you or TMF believe Wozniacki is better and has a had better career than ANY slam winner since Chris O Neill.

Click to expand...

of course I believe that. It is not a matter of believe. Stats say that. You yourself posted a link to the thread that discusses Wozniacki vs. Kvitova careers, and there were many people in there that said Wozniacki's career is better.

Do you want to compare stats of one-time slam winner Schiavone with Wozniacki? Because it is not going to look too good......

Oh, and one one thing. If you are using my quote as your signature it would be better and fair if you did not intentionally misrepresented what I have stated.
What I wrote was: 'Wozniacki ended the year #1 two years which makes her the best player for the past 100 weeks or so' This is vastly different than saying: "Wozniacki ended the year #1 two years which makes her the best player'.

Try explaining why Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki were all criticized while holding the #1 ranking. What other reason posessed Federer to make negative statements about a player holding the #1 ranking who had not claimed a major--that player being Jankovic?

Click to expand...

they were criticized, and rightfully so, for not being able to win a Slam in otherwise excellent season. So? If Wozniacki won a Slam in 2010 or 2011 it would have been a season for the ages. Without a Slam those two seasons are merely very, very good. What's your point?

Plus neither of those players are from US. It was simply very convenient to criticize those players.

Plus if Federer or a governing body feels it is unfair for a player to hold #1 ranking without a Major win - then perhaps they should do something about it. Like make a rule that you can't be #1 without a Slam. Until than - you get #1 ranking for having the most points - and rightfully so.

they were criticized, and rightfully so, for not being able to win a Slam in otherwise excellent season. So? If Wozniacki won a Slam in 2010 or 2011 it would have been a season for the ages.

Click to expand...

No, she would have lived up to her career task.

Without a Slam those two seasons are merely very, very good. What's your point?

Click to expand...

No, without a major, the seasons in question are irrelevant--like that of the other major-less #1 players.

Plus neither of those players are from US. It was simply very convenient to criticize those players.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Nationality had nothing to do with the criticism, much it had nothing to do with non-American Federer criticizing Jankovic. He--like everyone else--would have said the same thing no matter the player's country of origin.

Plus if Federer or a governing body feels it is unfair for a player to hold #1 ranking without a Major win - then perhaps they should do something about it. Like make a rule that you can't be #1 without a Slam. Until than - you get #1 ranking for having the most points - and rightfully so.

Click to expand...

So, instead of acknowledging that the idea of a major-less #1 is a joke and/or shame--and such a player should simply live up to the main purpose of a pro tennis player in earning said major, its now up to Federer, and others to create a rule--which at its end is a dodge to avoid the how and why losers such as Wozniacki lack the talent to win majors.

The level of twisting you engage in to protect Wozniacki is laughable.

I'm still waiting - could you rank those four players I presented stats of?

Click to expand...

You were playing a game of one, when the point--your point--was defending Wozniacki over those who won a major:

This is your argument. Stick to it and prove how a player (with the ultimate end result of the work you credit her for was a hollow, criticized #1 position) is superior to those who won the most important, defining prize in the sport.

To claim that two Kremlin Cup wins (by Myskina) are somehow comparable to two Premier Mandatory wins (by Wozniacki: Indian Wells and Bejing) is simply not correct.

Click to expand...

No they were better. I already pointed out the wins Myskina had to win such tournaments which Wozniacki didnt come close to as far as the caliber of opponents she beat to win any tournament. Wozniacki would never be beating prime Henin, prime Davenport, and prime Mauresmo to win tournaments, so that alone already makes Myskina's better.

How does Nalbandian has a way better career than Wozniacki?

Click to expand...

Simple:

YEC >>>>>> anything Wozniacki ever won, as I reminded you numerous times Woz was not only too poor a player to win a slam, but even too poor to win any of the next biggest tournaments (like the YEC) after a slam.

Semis or better of all 4 slams vs Wozniacki who has an abysmal record at 2 of the 4 slams.

Was by far a bigger threat to the top players of his era, heck he has an 8-11 record vs the so called GOAT Federer, and winning records vs many of the greatest players of his era.

Hung around the top 6 in the World for about 5 years, something Wozniacki will only manage to do for less than 3 (as it is clear that phase of her career is already over).

As for comparing their top year end rankings dont make me laugh by comparing at mens field of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Murray to a womens field of mostly absent with injury (in 2010 and 2011) Serena, part time mostly inactive Clijsters, a pre prime Azarenka, a way past her best Sharapova, Radwanska, Stosur, and Kvitova. You are the only one who thinks Wozniacki would have ever reached the top 5 vs a half decent field. That is proven now when the field merely got a bit better (not much, and is still weak even for WTA standards) and Wozniacki almost immediately dropped to number 11 from number 1 last year.

Plus Wozniacki is still only 22.

Click to expand...

LOL lets not pretend even you dont realize the best is already in the past for her.

You yourself posted a link to the thread that discusses Wozniacki vs. Kvitova careers, and there were many people in there that said Wozniacki's career is better.

Click to expand...

Check again, Kvitova was killing Wozniacki in the poll, and rightfully so as Kvitova's career >>>>> Wozniacki's, despite how much you want to trump Wozniacki's #1

I would add you are right about the Premier Mandatories. I had assumed the Premier Mandatories and Premier 9s were the same, and on many players bios they are listed as such. However you are wrong about Tier 1s, there were always 9 annual womens tier 1 events back in the day they were termed as such, and 9 tier 2 events. Moscow was a tier 1 event back then. So a Premier Mandatory or Premier 9 (which total to the top 9 tournaments today outside the slams) are both equivalent to an old tier 1, and as there was no division between the tier 1s technically speaking I would count either a Premier Mandatory or Premier 9 today as equivalent to a tier 1 then if one attempts to crossover the value of tournaments that way. I also am not surprised you failed to address my point Myskina and Majoli both had far bigger wins to win her tier 1 equivalent or even some of her tier 2 equivalent tournaments than Wozniacki to win any of the tournaments she ever won. Lastly who cares about a 32 vs 64 player draw in the WTA, even in the WTAs better days, there is virtually no talent outside the top 32 anyway.

So Wozniacki has won 5 former tier equivalents (Premier Mandatory or Premier 9) vs 3 for Majoli and 2 for Myskina. In no way is only 2 or even 3 tier 1 equivalents worth more than the value of a slam as far as the greatness of a career, sorry. When you win roughly half the tournaments and tier 1 equivalents of someone else, when both are relatively small numbers, plus the one with less has a slam to boot, there is no comparision between the careers.

Also regarding Nalbandian you have to be braindead to not realize it is 10x more impressive to win 3 Masters titles in an era Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray win every bloody Masters for about 5 years at one point minus 1, than to win 5 tier 1 equivalents in the scavenger hunt WTA of the several years Wozniacki was on top when numerous former journeywomen gobbled up slams (yet still not the hapless Woz even peaking in that field). Look at Nalbandians wins to win some of those Masters too, beating Federer in 2 of them, beating Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer all in a row in one, and compare them to Wozniacki and her wins to win hers. The funniest thing of all is you seem to think none of that matters which in itself is laughable. Anyone who actually followed the game while these players played would care about such things, whether you do or not. Anyway YEC + 3 Masters/tier 1/Premier top 9 whatever equivalents > 5 Masters/tier 1 equivalents. You already showed yourself Nalbandian has done better in the slams as well, even competing in a field 10 times harder than the one Wozniacki was in. Nalbandian is respected and revered for his talent in his prime, even today long past his prime, and well remembered for denying Federer an Open Era best tieing season in 2005 in the YEC final (the biggest match in tennis outside a slam final), and for his run of destroying Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, et al in winning the back to back indoor Masters in 2007. By contrast Wozniacki today is just remembered as the worst ever #1 along with Jankovic, and is basically a bit of a laughing stock having plumetted out of the top 10 so quickly after her laughable "reign" as the so called #1.

Not correct. Tournaments formerly known as Tier 1 are not the same as currently 'Premier Mandatory'. There were about 14 Tier 1 tournaments (depending on exact year you want to talk about). There are only 4 Premier Mandatory tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Bejing. Indian Wells and Miami are 128 draw, Madrid and Bejing are 64.

Kremlin Cup, when the tour was reorganized, was categorized as a merely Premier tournament, below Premier Mandatory and Premier 5. It was always just 32 draw.

To claim that two Kremlin Cup wins (by Myskina) are somehow comparable to two Premier Mandatory wins (by Wozniacki: Indian Wells and Bejing) is simply not correct.

No they were better. I already pointed out the wins Myskina had to win such tournaments which Wozniacki didnt come close to as far as the caliber of opponents she beat to win any tournament. Wozniacki would never be beating prime Henin, prime Davenport, and prime Mauresmo to win tournaments, so that alone already makes Myskina's better.

Hung around the top 6 in the World for about 5 years, something Wozniacki will only manage to do for less than 3 (as it is clear that phase of her career is already over).

Click to expand...

Incorrect again. Nalbandian was year-end top 10 during a five year span starting in 2003: 8,9,6,8,9. Apart from the best year in 2005 (when he finished 6) during other years he was not 'hanging around the top 6'. He was 'hanging around in top 10'. You know, that's what being 8 and 9 ranked means. Just to clarify - never managed to finish top 5. Ever. (Still a very good player by all means.)

Check again, Kvitova was killing Wozniacki in the poll, and rightfully so as Kvitova's career >>>>> Wozniacki's, despite how much you want to trump Wozniacki's #1

Click to expand...

You were asking if anyone else besides me and TMF believes that Wozniacki career was better than any of the one-slam winners. Judging from the thread you yourself referenced it clearly looks like there are more people that think so. Perhaps you should read up on what it means 'anyone else'.

Continue to point out factual errors since there's no point discussing opinions.

........random giberish about seeded players in a dead WTA of 2010 and 2011......

Click to expand...

I already pointed out Myskina beat prime Henin, peak Mauresmo, prime Clijsters, and prime Davenport to win her two tier 1 equivalents (and one time a tier 2 equivalent right before one). Who did Wozniacki beat en route to any of her tournament titles that impressive. Unless you have an actual answer for that, not some nonsense about beating such and such a seed in an era Radwanska reaches World #2 and Wozniacki and Safina reach World #1, then spare more of the completely useless nonsense.

You were asking if anyone else besides me and TMF believes that Wozniacki career was better than any of the one-slam winners.

Click to expand...

Kvitova is one of the poorest 1 slam winners, and the vast majority by an enormous margin (even on Planet TW which is full of ****s and Woztards galore) believe her career to be better than Wozniacki. Draw your own conclusion.